D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

Can you cite anywhere in the rules where the DM is instructed not to? This is asking someone to do your own homework -- that they have to disprove what you want rather than you proving what you want.

Typically one is not called upon to prove a negative. Particularly in the case of an exceptions-based rules system such as D&D 5e. I have read the rules and not found there to be any cases of the rules instructing the DM to do this, which is why I say it is not supported in the rules. If someone makes the positive claim that it is supported in the rules, the burden of proof is on them to cite where they see this support.

 

[iserith]

only if you ignore what everyone who disagrees with you has to say


nobody and I mean nobody has taken that ability from the player.

there are times there is uncertainty, you choose to rush past this with DM fiat, and that is fine. I can even understand how you read that. I just don't understand how you can read "THE ORC HAS +2 Intimidate, AND THAT MEAN THEY CAN BE ANYWHERE FROM LAUGHABUL TO DOWN RIGHT SCARY" and think that there is no uncertainty in any reading of it...

yes in game there is a scale he could roll a 1 (3 intimidate) he could roll a 20 (22 intimidate) I wonder if in your games you narrate that whole range?

You may have uncertainty in how you describe the environment as it pertains to the orc's intimidation, but that's not the same as uncertainty as it relates to calling for an ability check to resolve a task with a success and failure condition and a DC. In my games, I just say what the orc does and ask the player "What do you do?" I don't need a roll to determine flavor or color. I call for ability checks when it's time to resolve a task.

I pulled this out to make it its' own response. Yes, that number is part of my description it is how skillful they are at what they are doing. it is no more or less a viable reading of the rules then yours.

The rules don't support this because an ability check must have uncertainty as to the result of a task, a success and failure condition, and a DC. It fails the first test of whether there is an ability check because there is no uncertainty when it comes to how the player has the character respond. The player decides. It's a roll to determine flavor or color. You may as well flip a coin or roll on a d100 chart. It's not an ability check in the way the rules state. I'd ask you to go find rules support for your approach, but that would be cruel because there is none.

 

[clearstream]

Great analysis. I don’t disagree with you that a DM must suspend roleplaying (as it’s defined here) in order to justify using an ability check to determine what a player’s character does, rather than leaving it up to the player to do so. Can you cite anywhere in the rules where the DM is instructed to do this in the case of an attempt to socially influence a PC’s decisions?

Why would there be a carve out for social skills. In fact, expressly, ability checks and roleplaying are put on equal footing. That is what we should anticipate, seeing as it is implicitly the case everywhere else (that mechanics and roleplay are on equal footing.)

Social interactions have two primary aspects: roleplaying and ability checks.

Ability checks are not roleplaying. If a DM is unable to administer anything but roleplaying, a DM could not administer ability checks. However, they are expressly intermingled.

In addition to roleplaying, ability checks are key in determining the outcome of an interaction.

[EDIT Of course, there is also text in the DMG that endorses this view.]

 

[Charlaquin]

It more buttresses the argument, I believe, when worked through. Once we grasp roleplaying as not all or nothing, and concede that a DM can (and must!) suspend facets of roleplaying for the sake of RPG as game, we can see that a DM is not at all prevented from deeming the outcome of a social interaction with a PC uncertain.

I have not claimed that the DM is prevented from deeming the outcome of a social interaction with a PC uncertain. My claim is that it is not supported - that the rules don’t instruct the DM to do so. The rules don’t prevent the DM from doing anything.

 

[iserith]

I have not claimed that the DM is prevented from deeming the outcome of a social interaction with a PC uncertain. My claim is that it is not supported - that the rules don’t instruct the DM to do so. The rules don’t prevent the DM from doing anything.

Right, just like the rules don't prevent the DM from rolling a d20 and adding the Intimidate bonus to determine how to describe the monster to the players when it's trying to be intimidating. They don't support it, but don't prevent it.

Some people may even refer to what the DM is doing here as an ability check. That is not accurate in my view because ability checks have certain criteria that this approach does not meet. So even though it looks like the DM is making an ability check to determine how to describe the monster to the players, that's not really what it is.

 

[Charlaquin]

Why would there be a carve out for social skills. In fact, expressly, ability checks and roleplaying are put on equal footing. That is what we should anticipate, seeing as it is implicitly the case everywhere else (that mechanics and roleplay are on equal footing.)

There is no carve out for social skills. Social skills are exactly like all other skills, which allow the creature that has them to add its proficiency bonus to an ability check. Charisma checks are exactly like all other ability checks, which the rules instruct the DM to call for to resolve actions with uncertain outcomes. Actions that are meant to force a PC to make a particular decision do not have an uncertain outcome, so the rules do not instruct the DM to call for any ability check - Charisma or otherwise - to resolve such actions.

 

[Campbell]

The way you guys are presenting uncertainty is counterintuitive to me. It does not seem to be about uncertainty in the fiction.

 

[clearstream]

There is no carve out for social skills. Social skills are exactly like all other skills, which allow the creature that has them to add its proficiency bonus to an ability check. Charisma checks are exactly like all other ability checks, which the rules instruct the DM to calls for to resolve actions with uncertain outcomes. Actions that are meant to force a PC to make a particular decision do not have an uncertain outcome, so the rules to not instruct the DM to call for any ability check - Charisma or otherwise - to resolve such actions.

It's up to the DM to decide if the outcome is uncertain. If they do, then they are suspending an aspect of role-playing, because wherever something is uncertain, it is not determined.

Can you clarify why you feel there is some constraint on a DM deeming an interaction uncertain, given they may suspend role-playing, setting it to the back to give mechanics primacy in some regard?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The way you guys are presenting uncertainty is counterintuitive to me. It does not seem to be about uncertainty in the fiction.

How so? It seems that most here are employing the same usage as PHB pg 7:

In cases where the outcome of an action is uncertain, the Dungeons & Dragons game relies on rolls of a 20-sided die, a d20, to determine success or failure.

 

[clearstream]

I have not claimed that the DM is prevented from deeming the outcome of a social interaction with a PC uncertain. My claim is that it is not supported - that the rules don’t instruct the DM to do so. The rules don’t prevent the DM from doing anything.

This question puts the cart before the horse. The instruction the rules contain is that a DM should call for a roll when they decide the outcome is uncertain.

Not that outcomes have an innate certainty or uncertainty that binds the DM.